Slashdot Mirror
Public Libraries Trading Quaintness For Cash
theodp writes "To help nourish lean budgets, public libraries are increasingly eyeing the e-commerce used-book market as an alternative to the long-standing community tradition of the local book sale. Abebooks reports a tenfold surge in public library clients over the last three years. The payoff can be handsome. One library group boasts of getting $250 for a few boxes of 'miserable, horrible stuff' and another $110 from a World War II vet for a book about his Army regiment. A public library in Texas auctioned 300 items on eBay to help plug a budget hole. And a Seattle suburb moved its annual library sale of some 80,000 books to Amazon, citing expediency and extra cash as motivators."
My friend works in a used book store. He is also an obsessed bibliophile. Anyway, he ran into some hard times and had to sell a lot of his books. They were mostly trash that he would never read anyway. He put them up on bookfinder.com and got on average about $75/box of books (about 50-70 book/box) with some books going for well over $100. I remember thinking as he was doing that "Man the library could make a killing on this type of stuff" Too bad I never followed up on that I could have been a "consultant" ;)
I really enjoy books, and my budget restricts what I can buy new so I frequent library sales, now I can do that from the comfort of my chair...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
To sell used books on Amazon, a private individual generally has to type in the details of their normally small inventory, then create some make-shift packaging to ship it to the new owner. This is a big disadvantage compared to the local garage sale.
In comparison, libraries are on the other side of the equation. They have a hassle of moving large numbers of books around to try to sell them physically locally, but already have all the book details in electronic form.
This means that a library can not only just use Amazon's AWS services to load all their available titles directly into Amazon's online used book database using XML over http or SOAP, but can use the outputs of sales information to take the titles out of their systems and automatically print-up shipping information for the new owner.
In this case it's easy to see why libraries would be flocking to data fed book sales in droves, especially when you add in the factor of obscure books finding the "right" buyer from a much larger customer base, versus the usually limited local audience. Those advantages more than outweigh the extra costs of shipping.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Sounds good to me. In all the examples given the books ended up with people who will really enjoy them, as oppossed to the normal clearence sale method where people often just grab something random that looks like it might be interesting, and half the time it just ends up in the dumpster or used book store anyway. On top of that the library makes some money which helps it make more books freely available to the public.
There is the rare case where someone local will really want a book, so perhaps they could be given first preference, but all in all it sounds like a win-win to me.
For the record, I would have voted to re-instate the levy that was expiring, but felt that with property values skyrocketing they were already seeing an increase to fund the system and didn't need more millage.
I've been to plenty of local library sales and not only do most people simply ignore them, but less 10% of the books are sold.
My experience has been otherwise. My family has been involved in organization, setup, and cleanup of the local library's book sale for as long as I can remember. I'd have to say, as a sort of wild guess, that if "only" 70% of the books offered sell, we consider that a poor sale.
I don't see any reason for libraries to go through the enormous trouble of organizing a local sale just to keep a handful of patrons happy.
I can't speak for all libraries, but at mine, the book sale is entirely run by a volunteer group called the "Friends of the Library." The sale costs the library essentially nothing as far as money, time, or labor are concerned.
In the public library I work at, the offloading of books goes to the "Friends of the Library" group which seems to handle a bit of the funding (the parts that don't come from government, that is) They'd have a local monthly book sale for anything they can't/don't keep, then redistribute the funds for the betterment of the library. Modernizing machinery, billboards, supplies for the children's section, etc.
:)
From what I know of the members of the "Friends" where I'm at, they're not very computer savvy, and I'm not sure how they'd handle maintaining stuff with e-bay and amazon. Also, while it seems like a good marketplace, there's the additional burden of storage space. How long do you keep an item for sale before you realize it won't get bought and should be "recycled" instead? On a local sale, it's easier to decide. With a global audience, people tend to wait out a bit longer than they should.
In the long run, though, any good way to raise funds for local libraries is a welcome thought. Oh...and visit your local library.
I just picked up "Dreamweaver 4 Bible"
and "Fireworks 4 Bible" with unopened CD's still in the back, ONE DOLLAR EACH.
The library sold them off because no one was checking them out. The retail on those books is $50 each.
The books are in virgin condition.
Though I am A Linux man, I regretably confess that I am using a winbloz 2k box on the side to develope two commercial websites for customers.
(Don't ask, long story..)
I find excellent bargains in the library all the time like this..
It is a good idea. So good, in fact, that I'm personally a little disappointed that the libraries are figuring it out so soon.
:)
See, a few years ago I started using amazon.com to sell some of my old books. Amazed that crap I'd give away garnered $10, $20, and in some cases $30 or more, I started keeping a database of the list (and in my cases, sale) prices of used books on amazon. Then I started seeking out the top sellers at local used bookstores, garage sales, whatever. Whenever I found a big stack of cheap books, I'd often buy them all (or most) and then list them on amazon (which is free to do, in contrast with ebay). If they sell, great (70-80% do). If not, nothing lost other than a few minutes time typing in the ISDN number and setting a price.
Especially when I enabled my amazon "will ship internationally" seller option, I found amazing demand (often from overseas) for books that I could get for free or cheap (such as old editions of Dietel's C How to Program which sell quite well in India).
I suppose it's good that the libraries are getting a clue and taking advantage of this -- I just wish I had a little more time to make some more profits first
everything in moderation
Unfortunately, not funding government doesn't mean it can or will become more efficient with the money it does have. Quite often, it will end up cutting essential programs and services, rather than providing the same level of service at lower cost. Now, I'm not saying governmental efficiency is not a worthy goal to pursue, just that it's not as simple as "starving the beast".
In the case of a public library, its value is difficult or impossible to quantify with money, and therefore is not appropriately subjected to the capitalist market. What's the (capitalist market) value of a generation of children with free access to the classic writings?
As it stands, people could probably make a pretty penny by going to the public library, buying up the books for a quarter a piece then selling them online. It would be a good way to turn a $50 investment into $500.. (I've been tempted, I've noticed several of the books I bought from Amazon marketplace have library marks on them. So there are people who've fallen for the temptation.)
Personally, I love the fact that the library's bargain basement sales would give a small library to people who otherwise would not have a library. However, the internet has created a market where the books are more likely to be snagged by people looking for a quick buck. It would be better to let the community to keep the quick bucks to be made from the massive amounts of money the community pours into the library.
The only big downside, is that library's book processing cycle tends to sell the books at the bottom of the market. For example, our local library's bought several hundred Harry Potter books. I suspect they will sell them off as soon as the demand dies...That is, when the books are going for a penny a shot on Amazon.
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The libraries are selling the books rather than putting them on the shelves!
They do this because of commercial pressure. If everyone donated their old CDs and videos to the library, it would be unnecessary to rent or buy any of the older ones; you could borrow them. Somehow the people who want to corrupt the system, apparently publishers, have gotten control over the libraries. Have your ever noticed that the CDs and videos in the library are never the latest albums and movies? Certainly by now some family has decided not to let their children watch "Finding Nemo" any more times.
Everyone posting is so willingly believing that all the donated books are ones no one would want to check out of a library. But that's not so. For example, there are many books I would donate if I knew I could check them out later.
However, the librarians of the Multnomah County Central Library (in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.) have told me that putting a book in their system costs $30, and somehow it is cheaper to buy a new one! Over the years I have often mentioned the illogic in this. But all of them continue parroting the same line.
Consider the doctrine of first sale, in which you are allowed to do anything you want with your legally purchased copyrighted material, if you do not make a copy. Publishers have corrupted the doctrine of first sale so that copying into RAM to listen it or view it has been considered an illegal copy.
This is a common problem for many libraries. Even if they're not forbidden, there's a great stigma for it. Libraries wind up with outdated collections because patrons (or more likely, parents of school students) can't stand the idea of getting rid of books. I've heard stories of librarians who have a stack of books in the back, and each day each staff member takes home a book to be thrown away at the librarian's home, so that patrons don't see the books being removed.
Here are some links about collection weeding. The SUNLINK Weed Of The Month is an especially interesting resource. The best part of the site is the Some Things We've Dug Up While Weeding page, with gems like:
Of course, some of those may be the ones that bring the big bucks on eBay.Entertainment at the library gets people in the habit of coming in, so when they need something more "important" they'll think of the library. That's one reason.
:)
Alternately, you could consider that staying home watching a free video is keeping the dangerous teenagers off the street.
The real disturbing trend is that libraries are subscribing to periodical databases instead of building thier own hard copy or microfilm ones. This means the library is at the mercy of the periodical database owner rather than owner of the physical documents.
Rarely accessed obscure journals, newspapers, documents will eventually be dropped from databases and thus not be available to anyone at any cost.
A secondary issue is the case of someone claiming copyright ownership of public domain material because they scanned it in and serve it on web pages.
Gotta love those public school teachers who stay poor because of bad decisions or lifestyle choices that led them away from the big bucks. Golly, it's nice to know that they must have picked that profession because they chose to be poor, and, it's not like the community should give the "bums" anything back since they did that.. maybe if they were contributing something useful I'd have more compassion.
I mean... it's not like there's *gasp* NO - NEVER say it on Slashdot!.... more than two sides to the issue!?
WARNING: Extreme sarcasm detected in the area.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
OK, now I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
Assuming I never drive a car, but buy lots of products, it's not likely I'm paying much for roads, since a large portion of the cost of roads comes from gasoline tax. So, this is sort of an inverse example. Of course it benefits me to gain benefit from something I never pay for.
I have no idea what portion of road funding comes from gas taxes, and neither do you. The point stands, however; whether or not you directly use something should not necessarily be the deciding factor in whether or not you pay a share for it.
First, even though I do pay for public schools, there are still lots of uneducated (or just stupid?) people around. So it seems my money is just being wasted. Second, the whole "you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for..." arguments is kind of silly. I question having to subsidize the activities of others, and you respond with "well, you would still have to do it anyway". The point is, if someone wants to be educated, they should have to pay for it. If they choose not to be educated (i.e. qualify for welfare, etc.) they should have to pay for that too (where in this case, "paying for it" means simply living with the consequences).
Yeah, great logic! Since there is still crime, why don't we get rid of the police, too? Seems the money is just being wasted and all, just like schools and dumb people, right? Wrong. Your ideology is confusing your economics. And you called my argument silly? Ha ha.
If it's cheaper to fund schools than pay welfare for 50% of the population, then it's a better deal for everyone if we collectively fund schools instead of increased welfare.
I couldn't pay my own way through college -- I had to get grants and loans (mostly grants) from Uncle Sam (read: from tax money). So, your taxes paid my way through school. Bad deal? No, because now I pay lots of taxes (much, much more than I would had I remained uneducated with low pay). And now we both benefit.
I'm afraid you're one of those "uneducated (or just stupid?)" people if you really think this way (and again, I doubt it -- you are trolling for sure with this contrived nonsense).
everything in moderation
Interesting point. You're funding I-10 all the way from Jacksonville to Los Angeles, but have you driven it in it's entirety?
There are a good many things that are of benefit to this country that are funded with public dollars. How many times in your lifetime have you had to call the police of firemen? Generally speaking, you're not using them, but you're paying for them anyway. Lighting on public streets you never drive on, trash collections in neighborhoods you don't visit, etc...
Libraries are, IMHO, one of the stongest cases for use of public dollars. Folks who can't afford to go to Barnes and Noble can still read, use encyclopedias, and in most cases access the internet for information.
There will always be complaints about public dollars being spent on things individuals don't use (public schools for childless people). Those dollars aren't necessarily spent on you, but are spent on the infrastructure and education of your area as a whole, and that can only be a good thing.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Well, that brings us to the third and most debatable of the reasons for Libraries. There is inherent value in being able to get entertainment and information whenever you want as easily as possible. So people, when they come together to form governments, ought to try and pool their resources so they can do this.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
If you're like most Americans, you probably weren't born to wealthy parents. Comfortable, perhaps, but not wealthy. Now, if you were born 100 years ago, the chances of you being able to read by adulthood would be slim. More likely, your parents not being wealthy would have meant that you would be pulled from school (if you ever went at all) and put to work in a factory for a pittance. Why? to support your family, who couldn't afford to give you an education.
Fortunately, laws against child labor and for required education means that you have a very good chance of being able to read by the time you're out of highschool, no matter how poor your family may be. But if you were from a very poor family, what do you suppose the chances are that you would be able to read a book that your school didn't have?
You can deride the poor as "lazy" all you want, but the fact remains that there's no room for laziness in some of the worst-paying jobs out there, and many of the people who work in those tough, low wage jobs work more hours a week than you ever will, and still barely afford to put food on the table, let alone have some spare money to spend on broadening their horizons by buying a book. It's easy from your perspective to blame all the poor's problems on themselves, when you don't have those problems to worry about.
I'm a book collector (and reader) and on the MANY occasions that I went to library sales, there would always be a small cadre of used booksellers grabbing up everything potentially interesting and adding it to their stock, both online and off. Unless you were aggressive and quick, the chances of being able to find something interesting was minimal and I eventually stopped bothering. It's the same reason I stopped borrowing books from libraries. The most interesting ones get stolen or are marked "reference" and are not loaned out.
I even knew of one unscrupulous bookseller who would volunteer to help sort the books the night before so his partner could swoop in and grab anything of value ahead of the pack.
Some libraries charged $3 - $5 dollars per book on the first day to give people who actually wanted to purchase books TO READ (remember reading books?) a chance. That would scare off some of the more virulent booksellers, or at least make them more picky. I found some amazingly rare things at those sales.
Mod me +1 Nostalgic if you like, but I can't stand buying books online. You pay a hefty handling and shipping markup... and you lose out on the experience of being surrounded by old books that you can actually touch.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
Of course! Why hold a government library to the unrealistic standards of being financially responsible when we can just force the taxpayers to cough up some more money to cover their inefficiencies?
What makes you say libraries are financially irresponsible? My own public library is very responsible. I don't see layers and layers of administration; they just have a head librarian, a reference librarian, a children's librarian and assistant, and a few hardworking assistants. Basically other than some of the head librarian's time, it's 100% service all the way on staffing. The rest of the money goes to acquisitions, public Internet access, conservation, utilities etc. I've never seen any money spent on the bizarre ego gratification projects that private sector CEOs and managers constantly saddle their companies with. The library knows its mission, how to accomplish it, and how to do it efficiently.
In short, I wished my private company worked this well.
1) reduce operating expenses, lessening it's burden on the taxpayer, or
2) EXPAND operations at the same cost to the taxpayer.
I don't know about your town, but in my town the library is not some kind of independent taxation entity which determines its own budget. It's budget is set by our elected officials, who don't gold plate the institution by any means, but respond to the town's demands for certain minimal standards of service. One of the chief demands is for extended operating hours. Our library is open six days a week and most weekday evenings until 9PM.
Despite living in a fiscally conservative, Republican town, our library is strongly supported, even while recently we have had to cut police and fire protection, close schools, increase class sizes, and require fees for extracurricular activities and sports. It is viewed by an overwhelming majority as a critical public service, even though we have very easy access to a "big box" book store that has an espresso bar. Not only does the library house an excellent collection, provide interlibrary loan privileges, it also has copies and archives of public documents and plans that working people can examine during extended hours. It's a critical part of civic life for which there is no private sector alternative.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Capitalism does not always factor in ALL costs and ALL benefits. Libraries make difficult decisions deciding what to keep and what to surplus. Some books become "obsolete". They have finite resource to store and inventory them etc. The danger of a pure financially motivated decision is that a rare book will more likely end up in the hands of a collector (and thus inaccessible to other readers and researchers). If a high school student is inspired to future studies in literature by a beautiful Longfellow first edition in some small town New England libraries rare book section, how would a capitalist system measure that value? Is that more or less valuable to society than 5 years of Chilton's guides for Ford Sport utility vehicles?
The good news is the libraries are getting more return on the books they surplus through access to a larger customer base. Let's hope it doesn't lead to loss of the libraries mission however.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.